Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:e4330f45.0410080419.3be6211d_at_posting.google.com...
> "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<CbydnaMpAdDJq_vcRVn-gQ_at_comcast.com>...
>
> > There's no need for Kenneth or me to go off to Date's writings.
>
> I disagree.
>
> > If you will recall, Dawn started a discussion in here a few months ago
with
> > the (somewhat wry) title of "Date's first great blunder." In that
article,
> > the difference between Date's formulation of 1NF and Codd's formulation
of
> > 1NF was outlined pretty clearly.
>
> The main issue is that the "atomic" term does not have an absolute
> meaning and we can not base any formal definition on it. Codd's
> definition is not valid.

Agreed.

> > Equally clear, at least to me, was that
> > Dawn's objection to 1NF was based on the requirement that column values
be
> > atomic, and not based on the difference between a bag and a set.
>
> An objection that does not make sense because she is objecting a
> meaningless requirement. We can't define what "atomic" means in a
> precise way. It is all a byzantine discussion.

I gather that you are fine with including, uh, composite structures within a relation? In that case, would you limit such attributres to relation-valued attributes? Why or why not?

> > I don't know if Kenneth was reading the forum at that time. If not,
Ken,
> > the subject was pretty much beaten to death at that time. There was a
lot
> > of "people hearing without listening" going on.
>
> But you are showing that you don't understand the issue very well
> currently.

I disagree. --dawn

>
> Regards
Received on Sun Oct 17 2004 - 23:33:23 CEST